Letter to my Senators
Mar. 28th, 2006 12:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI just sent this off, though I removed the comment about supporting the Censure of Clinton in the one I sent to Boxer.
Senator,
I am a Republican. I am a Staff Sergeant in the Army. I deployed to Iraq in OIF-1, in 2003. I am presently in Korea. It happens I voted for you in your last election, because you were the better of the candidates available
I want you to support Russ Feingold’s censure of President Bush. The facts are not in question. He admits what he did was against the law. He says he will continue to do it, which means he not only admits to breaking the law, but shows no remorse, nor yet any intent to discontinue such lawbreaking.
That is unacceptable. We do not yet know if the actual surveillance is useful. That is a policy question, and has gray areas, which need to be investigated before changes to the law are made. This, on the other hand is a black and white issue, and only one question really needs to be asked; Did the President break the law. If one wishes to be expansive, one may ask if he did so knowingly.
If the answer is yes there is no choice but to, at the very least, censure him.
Even the expansive version can only be answered yes, since Section 1809 of FISA says, "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." Section 2511(2)(f) says FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted,” which means the president’s admission of doing both of those things is a confession of guilt.
To bring President Clinton into this, I will say the example of his censure, shows that this is something for which there can be no question. The censure of Clinton was made after he was acquitted in the impeachment trial resulting from his actions in the Paula Jones case. If you could support censuring him then, I can see no moral, ethical, or rational basis for not supporting Sen. Feingold in this matter now.
The rule of law is what separates us from tyranny. We do not elect a king, but rather a president, one who is, at most, First among equals, and not exempt from the law. To refuse to censure him when he publicly, unrepentantly, violates the law would be a grave injustice to the Rule of Law. To fail to censure him when he admits he, intentionally did this, and intends to keep doing it would be unconscionable.
Sincerely,
Senator,
I am a Republican. I am a Staff Sergeant in the Army. I deployed to Iraq in OIF-1, in 2003. I am presently in Korea. It happens I voted for you in your last election, because you were the better of the candidates available
I want you to support Russ Feingold’s censure of President Bush. The facts are not in question. He admits what he did was against the law. He says he will continue to do it, which means he not only admits to breaking the law, but shows no remorse, nor yet any intent to discontinue such lawbreaking.
That is unacceptable. We do not yet know if the actual surveillance is useful. That is a policy question, and has gray areas, which need to be investigated before changes to the law are made. This, on the other hand is a black and white issue, and only one question really needs to be asked; Did the President break the law. If one wishes to be expansive, one may ask if he did so knowingly.
If the answer is yes there is no choice but to, at the very least, censure him.
Even the expansive version can only be answered yes, since Section 1809 of FISA says, "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." Section 2511(2)(f) says FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted,” which means the president’s admission of doing both of those things is a confession of guilt.
To bring President Clinton into this, I will say the example of his censure, shows that this is something for which there can be no question. The censure of Clinton was made after he was acquitted in the impeachment trial resulting from his actions in the Paula Jones case. If you could support censuring him then, I can see no moral, ethical, or rational basis for not supporting Sen. Feingold in this matter now.
The rule of law is what separates us from tyranny. We do not elect a king, but rather a president, one who is, at most, First among equals, and not exempt from the law. To refuse to censure him when he publicly, unrepentantly, violates the law would be a grave injustice to the Rule of Law. To fail to censure him when he admits he, intentionally did this, and intends to keep doing it would be unconscionable.
Sincerely,
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 05:51 pm (UTC)On Article I the vote was 45 to convict, 55 acquit. For Article II the vote was 50/50 (two thirds, plus one being required to convict).
Including the depositions, the Senate Trial ran from 02 Feb, 1999, to 12 Feb, 1999 (when the vote on Art. II was called).
TK